Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat

/Archive 15 &bull; /Archive 14 &bull; /Archive 13 &bull; /Archive 12 &bull; /Archive 11 &bull; /Archive 10 &bull; /Archive 9 &bull; /Archive 8 &bull; /Archive 7 &bull; /Archive 6 &bull; /Archive 5 &bull; /Archive 4 &bull; /Archive 3 &bull; /Archive 2 &bull; /Archive 1

This article was merged into Prem Rawat, but the Prem Rawat page no longer has a section with that title. 86.15.16.171 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See the archives for past discussions. Avb 19:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Extremist websites"
Some text was deleted with the edit summary, " REmoved extremists websites":
 * ''A group of former followers that have become vocal critics, call themselves "ex-premies". There is also a website that utilizes this term, Ex-Premie.Org.

The sources for the text include the Courier Mail of Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Rocky Mountain News of Denver. Why was that material removed? We certainly have valid sources which show that there are former members who are vocal critics and that the website exists. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed because they violate WP:LINKSTOAVOID - Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".Momento (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A) You deleted material unrelated to the website. B) There's no link. The second sentence uses reliable sources to establish the existence of the website, but there's no link to the website. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Will seems correct here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Will seems incorrect to me. Pure sophistry to say that putting in the name of a hostile, unmoderated website without making it into a link is not violating links to avoid. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Momento is now adding completely irrelevant information about one critic's drug record. If he can find a reliable source that specifically says his drug record is relevant to his criticism, he is welcome to re-add it. - Merzbow (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right Merzbow. Ackland's personal business and affairs -- or anyone else's for that matter -- isn't fodder for a Wikipedia article even if it something published in a newspaper.  Ackland isn't a public person, but Prem Rawat is a public person.  That's a huge difference when one makes assessments about writing about living people anywhere, including on Wikipedia.  But, it's a common thing for members of controversial NRMs to try to discredit critics of their living leaders by digging up dirt about people.  Some followers of Prem Rawat have been notorious for libelling and defaming those of private individuals who have been critical of Prem Rawat.  Just because someone gets their name in a newspaper doesn't make them a public person.  This is what happens wannabe writers are set loose on a place like this one and they write articles that are never vetted by a legal team and fact checkers.  And when you look for redress on issues, all one gets is another bunch of amateurs pretending to know something, like the ARBcom or mediation "cabal."  LOL! Sylviecyn (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ex-premie.org isn't an "extremist" website and it's a personal attack to characterize it as such, especially since its owner, John Brauns, is a wiki editor. It's not a website by "bitter" former followers, either.  Editors here should watch their mouths.  EPO is a website that provides an history of involvement with Prem Rawat as told by former followers of Prem Rawat.  I told you guys to be careful about believing in the CESNUR meme that "all apostates are liars," because that's a belief-system about apostates promoted only by certain CESNUR "scholars," -- it's not the truth.  Btw, this article is just horrible.  I would prefer it be deleted than have it stand as is.  And no, I'm not going to help with it given the recent arbcom decision, which I think is absolutely incompetent and/or corrupt.  That's an informed assessment, by the way, not a personal attack on the arbcom.  They're idiots -- that's a personal attack on them.  Sylviecyn (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee, don't beat around the bush, Sylvie. Just say it like you see it. :-)    Rumiton (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I never do. :-) Sylviecyn (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-redirected
Per previous and recent discussions here and at talk:Prem Rawat, I have merged some of this remaining material to Prem Rawat. The remaining section, "Observations of scholars", I've copied to Talk:Prem Rawat/Observations of scholars. I don't believe that that material was in a suitable form to merge directly. Rather than a paragraph about the criticism of each scholar, it would be much better to use those scholars to comment on topics that are covered in the bio or related articles. That way the critical (and complimentary) material is not segregated but is interwoven into the articles in the logical places.

Some of the debate over this article concerns the fact that Prem Rawat is a living person. Wikipedia has numerous articles that cover criticisms of religious movements. See category: Criticism of religion. If editors feel an article is needed to hold criticism I suggest that it be focussed on an institution or belief system rather than on a person. For example, "Criticism of Divine Light Mission" or "Criticism of the teachings of Prem Rawat". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As soon as you give the name of a living person in an article heading it becomes part of that person's Wikipedia biography, and the choice of sources becomes limited. Rumiton (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just your opinion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)